Madras High Court
A.Rajendran vs S.P.Velumani on 9 August, 2024
Author: C.V.Karthikeyan
Bench: C.V.Karthikeyan
C.S.No.169 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON 16.07.2024
PRONOUNCED ON 09.08.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
C.S.No. 169 of 2021
and
O.A.No.264 of 2021
A.Rajendran ... Plaintiff
Vs.
S.P.Velumani ... Defendant
Prayer : Plaint filed under Order VII Rule 1 of CPC read with Order IV Rule
1 of Original Side Rules to pass a Judgment and Decree to against the
defendant:
a).To pay damages for loss of reputation and mental agony for a sum of
Rs.1,00,01,000/- to the plaintiff.
b).For a permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his men, agent,
servants, and anyone claiming under him and acting on his behalf from in any
way making imputations against the plaintiff, either directly or by innuendos,
in any manner whatsoever.
1/56
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.No.169 of 2021
For plaintiff Mr.S.Manuraj
For defendant Mr.S.Duraisamy
JUDGMENT
The Suit had been filed seeking a direction against the defendant to pay
damages for loss of reputation and mental agony for a sum of Rs.1,00,01,000/-
to the plaintiff and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from
making any innuendos in any manner whatsoever and for such further orders.
2.The plaintiff, at the time of filing the suit was the Secretary in-charge
of the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam Party (DMK Party) for Sulur Union
Division in Coimbatore. He had been an elected representative and held the
post of the Union Councillor in Sulur Panchayat. He had also held the post of
Union Chairman at Sulur Panchayat and had worked for the welfare of the
people. He had been associated with the DMK party for over 25 years and had
been leading a public life and was always considered as a person of repute
among DMK party members and the general public. He stated that he was a
responsible member of the society with impeccable character, good conduct
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
and high standard and dignity. His good reputation was an integral part of his
public life.
3.The defendant at the time of filing of the suit was the Minister for
Municipal Administration, Rural Development and Implementation of Special
Programme of Tamil Nadu and also the Organising Secretary and Secretary of
Coimbatore South Rural District of the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra
Kazhagam (AIADMK) political party. The defendant was ordinarily a resident
of Chennai and therefore, the suit had been instituted in this Court.
4.It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant, while addressing a
political public meeting in Pollachi, had made several imputations and
defamatory remarks against the plaintiff which the plaintiff claims are baseless
and untrue. The plaintiff further stated that they are motivated attacks on the
personal life of the plaintiff and his character with a view to cause disrepute to
the plaintiff. The defamatory statement which was made by the defendant in
his speech at Pollachi on 11.01.2021 is also extracted below:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
“me;j khjphp. ,nj khjphp/// jpKfy me;j
,uapypy; te;J ghypay; bjhy;iy gz;Qqd/// ,njh
K/f/!;;lhypd; ,Jjhd;/// vd;ndhl nghl;nlht
fdpbkhHp fhkpr;rp';fy/// ,Jf;bfd;d gjpY>
c';fz;zd;. c';fz;ze;jhd; xl;o epf;FwhU/// eP';f
xU bgz;zh ,Ue;J fz;or;rp';fsh `gh;!;L/// mnj
nghy///””
5.The plaintiff had also given a English translation and it is as follows:
“Like, Like wise in DMK, while traveling on a train, he has
sexually harassed someone... here, This is M.K.Stalin... Kanimozhi,
you have showed my picture.... What is the answer? Your brother,
your bother is closely standing.... Firstly, as a woman would you
condemn this? .... like this...”
6.It is stated by the plaintiff that while making the statement on
11.01.2021, the defendant was holding a picture of the plaintiff standing along
with the then Leader of Opposition in the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly
and the President of DMK Party, Thiru M.K.Stalin. It is stated that the
defamatory statement had been made without any bonafide reason and was a
misrepresentation of facts and false.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7.The plaintiff then narrated the sequence of events which transpired
leading to the speech of the defendant.
8.On 11.03.2019, the plaintiff was travelling from Chennai to
Coimbatore by train. He had been diagnosed with diabetes mellitus and was
under treatment for five years. He had the necessity to use the rest room very
frequently. During his travel, when he tried to climb down from the upper
berth, by mistake, he slipped and fell on the lower berth where a woman
passenger was sleeping. The plaintiff claimed that this fall had caused him to
lose consciousness briefly. Before he could explain the situation, the woman
passenger made an oral complaint to the TTR and the police constables were
summoned. Thereafter, realizing what had happened, the woman passenger
informed the railway authorities and asked them not to pursue action against
the plaintiff.
9.But however, according to the plaintiff, owing to constant pressure
induced by political persons associated with AIADMK Party, after more than
15 days, the authorities went to the house of the woman passenger and
recorded a complaint from her husband and registered a FIR in Crime No.62
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
of 2019 on 26.03.2019.
10.Later the woman passenger appeared before the Judicial Magistrate,
Additional Mahila Court, Salem on 05.04.2019 wherein, her statement was
recorded and it is stated that she stated “it was not done purposefully” and “it
just happened”.
11.The plaintiff then filed Crl.O.P.No.14433 of 2019 seeking to quash
the First Information Report. A learned Single Judge of this Court by order
dated 14.06.2019 quashed the First Information Report and all consequent
proceedings.
12.It had been stated that the defendant, like other AIADMK party
members, were trying to save their image because of the ongoing CBI
investigation and enquiry into the Pollachi sexual crimes and therefore, they
raised this issue against the plaintiff.
13.The plaintiff claimed that the fact that the FIR was quashed should
have been known to the defendant who was a Member of the Council of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Ministers of the State of Tamil Nadu. However, the defendant still continued
to make defamatory statement to tarnish the image of the plaintiff. The
plaintiff claimed that as a public figure, his reputation is a valuable asset. It
was also stated that the defendant cannot avail the defence of truth since the
defamatory statement was contrary to facts. The defendant had accused the
plaintiff of having committed an offence of sexual harassment which is
contrary to truth. The defendant had given an impression as if the case was
still pending, when the FIR itself had been quashed by this Court.
14.The plaintiff further stated that the statement had caused irreparable
injury and hardship. Many of his well-wishers and friends and office bearers
of the DMK party contacted him after watching and hearing the speech made
by the defendant on 11.01.2021 on television and social media and questioned
the plaintiff regarding the same. It was also stated that the defendant made
derogatory, untrue and defamatory imputations against the plaintiff which are
ex facie false and baseless. It was stated that this act of the defendant was
politically motivated. The defendant represented the Thondamuthur
Constituency and was in-charge of South Rural District for AIADMK and
therefore, there was malafide in his action.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
15.It was stated that the Courts have always advised persons holding
political office to refrain from making defamatory remarks.
16.It was under these circumstances that the suit had been filed seeking
damages of a sum of Rs.1,00,01,000/- for damages for loss of reputation and
mental agony against the defendant and for permanent injunction restraining
the defendant from making further imputations against the plaintiff either
directly or by innuendos.
17.The defendant filed his written statement, wherein, he denied all
allegations as false, baseless and misleading. He also contended that the suit
was a sheer abuse of process of Court and had been filed to harass the
defendant. He also stated that his status was correct and that he was the
Minister for Municipal Administration, Rural Development and
Implementation of Special Programme of Tamil Nadu and was also the
Organising Secretary and Secretary of Coimbatore South Rural District of
AIADMK party. However, it was denied that he was a resident of Chennai. he
claimed that his permanent residence was Sugunapuram, Kuniyamuthur Post,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Coimbatore. He temporarily resided in Chennai since he was a Minister of
State Government.
18.The defendant denied that the plaintiff was holding any post in DMK
party and that he had unimpeachable character and good conduct and
maintained high standard of dignity. The contentions of the speech of the
defendant were denied. It was stated that, even if it is were to be read, the
name of the plaintiff was never mentioned in the speech. It had therefore been
stated that, it is not known how the statement affected the alleged reputation of
the plaintiff. It was also stated that holding the picture of the plaintiff with the
Leader of Opposition would not amount to defamation. It was stated that it
was a fact that the railway police at Salem had registered the First Information
Report against the plaintiff in Crime No.62 of 2018 on 26.03.2019 for the
offence under Section 354(A) IPC read with Section 4 of Tamil Nadu
Prohibition of Harassment of Woman Act, 2002. Thereafter, further offence
under Sections 294(b) and 506(ii) IPC were also included in the First
Information Report.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
19.In the written statement, the defendant also extracted portions from
the First Information Report. It would not be required at this juncture to
extract the same again. It was the case of the defendant that the plaintiff was
travelling in a fully drunken condition from Chennai to Coimbatore. It was
stated that in an intoxicated condition at midnight, the plaintiff misbehaved
with a middle aged lady lying in the lower berth in the AC coach. The
defendant stated that it was only fit to tell the public about the character of
persons like the plaintiff for misbehaving with ladies while travelling in the
train. It was also stated that the victim had also stated there was smell of
alcohol on the plaintiff, when he fell down.
20.The defendant therefore reiterated that the plaintiff was in drunken
condition while travelling in a public train. He stated that whether
purposefully or not, the plaintiff still fell on the lady and after she pushed him.
He was not able to wake up for 15 minutes due to the effect of the alcohol.
The defendant stated that he was not aware as to what transpired between the
victim and the plaintiff after the case was registered. He stated that a
compromise had been effected and it was only on that basis, the First
Information Report was quashed. He stated that it was not quashed on merits.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
The incident however, was not denied. The allegations in the First Information
Report remained intact.
21.It was also stated that the public used to talk about the indecent
behaviour of the plaintiff with a lady in a drunken condition in a running train.
The defendant denied that the plaintiff was a diabetic patient. The defendant
stated that the plaintiff, being a representative of a political party must accept
that his activities is open to criticism for any act committed in front of the
public and therefore, the plaintiff cannot claim any immunity or right of
privacy. It was stated that the speech of the defendant was made on the basis
of the available records and on the basis of the First Information Report and
also upon the affidavit in the compromise which reiterated that the plaintiff
fell on the victim. It was therefore contended that there was nothing wrong in
telling the people as to why the First Information Report was registered.
22.The defendant also stated that the statement being a reflection of
truth and supported by a public document like First Information Report would
not amount to defamation. It was also stated that it was incorrect to state that
the woman passenger informed the railway authorities not to pursue action
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
against the plaintiff. It was the plaintiff who prevented the husband of the
victim from lodging any complaint. It was stated that it was midnight and the
lady was also pregnant and she was uncomfortable sitting in the police station
and therefore, her husband took her away in the next available train, Qurla
Express and went to Coimbatore. The railway authorities had taken a decision
to register a FIR and the facts came to light only when it appeared in the press.
It had been stated that after it was published, lakhs of people read the same
and therefore, there was nothing wrong in the defendant speaking about it in
the meeting.
23.The defendant denied that political persons belonging to AIADMK
party had threatened the husband of the victim to lodge the complaint. In the
First Information Report, it had been stated that the Inspector of Police went to
Coimbatore on the directions of the superior officer and obtained a complaint
from the husband of the victim. It had been again reiterated that even in the
affidavit, the victim had stated that the plaintiff was drunk and fell on her and
after she pushed him, he could not get up for about 15 minutes. It was
reiterated that the First Information Report was only closed and was not
quashed. The averments about the Pollachi incident were denied and it was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
stated that it had nothing to do with AIADMK party members or the
defendant. The defendant justified speaking about the incident before the
public since it was a true story. It had therefore been stated that it would not
amount to defamation.
24.It was also stated that the speech was on 11.01.2021 at Pollachi and
not within the original jurisdiction of this Court. It had been stated that
therefore, the Court does not have jurisdiction to examine the issues raised by
the plaintiff. It had been contended that the competent Court was the Court at
Pollachi alone. It was also stated that the defendant was not residing in the
address given in the plaint. It was only a temporary address. It had also been
stated that the nature of the loss suffered had also not been stated in the plaint
and therefore, the suit itself is not maintainable and has to be dismissed with
exemplary costs.
25.On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues had been
framed on 08.03.2022 for consideration:
“i).Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get the relief of
damages as sought for in the plaint?
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
ii).Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a sum of
Rs.1,00,01,000/- (Rupees One Crore and One Thousand Only) as
damages as sought for in the plaint?
iii).Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of
permanent injunction as sought for in the plaint?
iv).Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the costs of the suit?
v).To what other relief the plaintiff is entitled for?”
26.Thereafter, the parties were directed to tender evidence. The plaintiff
examined himself as PW-1. He filed his proof affidavit and also marked
Exs.P1 to P5. Ex.P1 was the deposition of the lady before the Judicial
Magistrate, Additional Mahila Court, Salem dated 05.04.2019. Ex.P2 was the
certified copy of the order in Crl.O.P.No.14433 of 2019 dated 14.06.2019.
Ex.P3 was the CD with true copy of transcripts, CD containing the speech of
the defendant dated 11.01.2021 at Pollachi along with certificate under Section
65-B of Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Ex.P4 was the printout of the screen shot
of the defendant while making the defamatory speech along with certificate
under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Ex.P5 was the certified
copy of the First Information Report in Crime No.62 of 2019 dated
26.03.2019. During cross-examination of PW-1, the defendant marked Ex.D1,
the copy of the petition in Crl.O.P.No.14433 of 2019 and Ex.D2, a copy of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Malai Malar newspaper dated 28.03.2019 and Ex.D3 a copy of Daily Thanthi
newspaper dated 28.03.2019.
27.The defendant then examined himself as DW-1. He also filed his
proof affidavit. The defendant did not mark any document during his chief
examination.
28.Heard arguments advanced by Mr.S.Manuraj, learned counsel for the
plaintiff and Mr.S.Duraisamy, learned counsel for the defendant.
29.Mr.S.Manuraj, learned counsel for the plaintiff pointed out that the
suit had been filed seeking damages of Rs.1,00,01,000/- against the defendant
and for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from making any
innuendos or defamatory speeches against the plaintiff. He pointed out that the
plaintiff was an active member of the DMK party and enjoyed a good
reputation. He also held the post of Union Councillor and Union Chairman of
the Sulur Panchayat. It had been stated that on 11.03.2019, the plaintiff was
travelling from Chennai to Coimbatore by train. He was a diabetic patient. He
had the necessity to use the rest room very frequently. During his travel when
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
he tried to climb down from the upper berth by mistake, he slipped and fell on
the lower berth where a woman passenger was sleeping. The plaintiff claimed
that this fall had caused him to loose consciousness briefly. He had
immediately explained the situation. The learned counsel stated that this
explanation was also accepted and understood by the said woman passenger.
The matter rested there.
30.However, later, after about 15 days, an FIR came to be registered
against the plaintiff. It had been contended that on realizing the actual reasons,
the defacto complainant and the plaintiff had entered into a compromise which
was recognized by a learned Single Judge of this Court and in
Crl.O.P.No.14433 of 2019, the FIR itself was quashed. The learned counsel,
therefore stated that the incident had come to a closure. It was then reopened
by the defendant owing to the malice he nurtured against the plaintiff.
31.The speech read by the defendant was also pointed out by the learned
counsel and it was stated that it was clear that the defendant imputed only the
plaintiff and none else. Moreover, at the time of the speech, the defendant also
held out a photo of the plaintiff and then another photo, this time of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
plaintiff with the DMK party president. The learned counsel stated that the
plaintiff had suffered much loss and reputation and mental agony owing to this
speech made by the defendant. It was pointed out that on the date when the
said speech was made, the First Information Report had already been stood
quashed and therefore, the defendant with that knowledge had still deliberately
made the speech with intention to damage the reputation of the plaintiff.
32.The learned counsel pointed out that the plaintiff was holding
responsible posts and his image had been lowered in the eyes of his party men,
colleagues and friends and more importantly in the eyes of the party president
and other senior members. It was stated that the plaintiff was justified in
seeking damages against the defendant.
33.The learned counsel for the plaintiff placed reliance on the judgment
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (1990) 3 SCC 396, M.J.Zakharia
Sait V. T.M.Mohammed. The relevant paragraphs are as follows:
“31. What exactly should be pleaded in an action for
defamation has been stated also in Halsbury's Laws of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
England (Vol. 28, 4th edn.). In paragraphs 174, 175, 176, 177 and
178 of the said volume, we have discussion with regard to natural
and ordinary meaning of the words complained of, and about the
innuendo and the facts and matters supporting innuendo which
should be pleaded and proved. It is stated there that in drafting a
statement of claim in libel or slander, it is necessary to distinguish
between cases in which the words complained of are alleged to be
defamatory in their natural and ordinary meaning, whether the
literal or the inferential meaning, and those in which the
defamatory meaning is a secondary meaning derived from
extrinsic or special facts or matters, so that a legal or true
innuendo must be pleaded. If it is claimed that the words are
defamatory in their natural and ordinary meaning and the words
bear only one literal meaning, which is clear and explicit, it is not
necessary to plead the meaning in the statement of claim.
However, if the words are reasonably capable of bearing more
than one literal meaning or if the defamatory meaning relied on is
inferential (a “false or popular” innuendo), it is desirable and
may even be necessary to plead the defamatory meaning or
meanings. Where the plaintiff wishes to claim that the words
complained of were understood to be defamatory in a secondary
or extended meaning by those persons having knowledge of some
special facts or matters, such a meaning constitutes a separate
cause of action and the same should be pleaded expressly in a
separate paragraph in the statement of claim (emphasis supplied).
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Particulars must be given of the facts and matters on which the
plaintiff relies in support of any secondary or extended
defamatory meaning which it is decided to plead. These special
facts or matters may be extrinsic to the words used or there may
be some special meaning of the words themselves. The plaintiff
should plead that particular words bore the innuendo meaning.
32. In Gatley on Libel and Slander (8th edn.) in paragraph
95, while dealing with “True and False Innuendoes”, it is
observed that in distinguishing between the ordinary and natural
meaning and the innuendo meaning of words, the substantive law
cannot be separated from the requirements of pleadings and the
rules of evidence. When the plaintiff wishes to rely on any special
facts as giving the words a defamatory or any particular
defamatory meaning, he must plead and prove such facts
including, where necessary, any special knowledge possessed by
those to whom the words are published which gives the words that
meaning, and must set out the meaning in his pleading. Where
words are not defamatory in their natural and ordinary meaning
but are so only by reason of extrinsic circumstances, the plaintiff
must plead also those circumstances and the precise defamatory
meaning conveyed by them to those persons to whom the words
were published. Otherwise, the statement of claim will disclose no
cause of action. Such an innuendo is required to be pleaded
whenever the plaintiff relies on any extrinsic facts as giving to the
words the meaning he alleges. The plaintiff must plead the words,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the extrinsic facts and knowledge of those facts on the part of one
or more of those persons to whom the words were published. He
can also give evidence of any facts and circumstances which he
has pleaded and which would lead reasonable persons to infer
that the words were understood in that meaning provided such
facts or circumstances were known to those persons to whom the
words were published. The evidence required is the evidence of
special facts causing the words to have a meaning revealed to
those who knew the special facts.
37. The conspectus of the authorities thus shows that where
the defamatory words complained of are not defamatory in the
natural or ordinary meaning, or in other words, they are not
defamatory per se but are defamatory because of certain special
or extrinsic facts which are in the knowledge of particular persons
to whom they are addressed, such innuendo meaning has to be
pleaded and proved specifically by giving the particulars of the
said extrinsic facts. It is immaterial in such cases as to whether
the action is for defamation or for corrupt practice in an election
matter, for in both cases it is the words complained of together
with the extrinsic facts which constitute the cause of action. It is
true that Section 123(4) of the Act states that the statement of fact
in question must be “reasonably calculated to prejudice the
prospects” of the complaining candidate's election. However,
unless it is established that the words complained of were capable
of being construed as referring to the personal character or
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
conduct of the candidate because of some specific extrinsic facts
or circumstances which are pleaded and proved, it is not possible
to hold that they were reasonably calculated to prejudice his
prospects in the elections. For, in the absence of the knowledge of
the special facts on the part of the electorate, the words
complained of cannot be held to be reasonably calculated to
prejudice such prospects. Once, however, it is proved by laying
the foundation of facts that the words in question were, by virtue
of the knowledge of the special facts, likely to be construed by the
electorate as referring to the personal character or conduct of the
complaining candidate, it may not further be necessary to prove
that in fact the electorate had understood them to be so. That is
because all that Section 123(4) requires is that the person
publishing the complaining words must have intended and
reasonably calculated to affect the prospects of the complaining
candidate in the election.”
34.The learned counsel for the plaintiff then placed reliance on the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2014) 10 SCC 473,
Anvar P.V Vs. P.K.Basheer and Others. The relevant paragraphs are as
follows:
“15. Under Section 65-B(4) of the Evidence Act, if it is
desired to give a statement in any proceedings pertaining to an
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
electronic record, it is permissible provided the following
conditions are satisfied:
(a) There must be a certificate which identifies the
electronic record containing the statement;
(b) The certificate must describe the manner in which the
electronic record was produced;
(c) The certificate must furnish the particulars of the
device involved in the production of that record;
(d) The certificate must deal with the applicable conditions
mentioned under Section 65-B(2) of the Evidence Act; and
(e) The certificate must be signed by a person occupying a
responsible official position in relation to the operation of the
relevant device.
16. It is further clarified that the person need only to state
in the certificate that the same is to the best of his knowledge and
belief. Most importantly, such a certificate must accompany the
electronic record like computer printout, compact disc (CD),
video compact disc (VCD), pen drive, etc., pertaining to which a
statement is sought to be given in evidence, when the same is
produced in evidence. All these safeguards are taken to ensure
the source and authenticity, which are the two hallmarks
pertaining to electronic record sought to be used as evidence.
Electronic records being more susceptible to tampering,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
alteration, transposition, excision, etc. without such safeguards,
the whole trial based on proof of electronic records can lead to
travesty of justice.”
35.The learned counsel for the plaintiff also placed reliance on the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (1994) Supp (3) SCC 5,
Quamarul Islam Vs. S.K.Kanta and Others. The relevant paragraphs are as
follows:
“48. Newspaper reports by themselves are not evidence of the
contents thereof. Those reports are only hearsay evidence. These
have to be proved and the manner of proving a newspaper
report is well settled. Since, in this case, neither the reporter
who heard the speech and sent the report was examined nor
even his reports produced, the production of the newspaper by
the Editor and Publisher, PW 4 by itself cannot amount
to proving the contents of the newspaper reports. Newspaper, is
at the best secondary evidence of its contents and is not
admissible in evidence without proper proof of the contents
under the Indian Evidence Act. The learned trial Judge could not
treat the newspaper reports as duly ‘proved’ only by the
production of the copies of the newspaper. The election
petitioner also examined Abrar Razi, PW 5, who was the polling
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
agent of the election petitioner and a resident of the locality in
support of the correctness of the elereports including
advertisements and messages as published in the said
newspaper. We have carefully perused his testimony and find
that his evidence also falls short of proving the contents of the
reports of the alleged speeches or the messages and the
advertisements, which appeared in different issues of the
newspaper. Since, the maker of the report which formed basis of
the publications, did not appear in the court to depose about the
facts as perceived by him, the facts contained in the published
reports were clearly inadmissible. No evidence was led by the
election petitioner to prove the contents of the messages and the
advertisements as the original manuscript of the advertisements
or the messages was not produced at the trial. No witness came
forward to prove the receipt of the manuscript of any of the
advertisements or the messages or the publication of the same in
accordance with the manuscript. There is no satisfactory and
reliable evidence on the record to even establish that the same
were actually issued by IUML or MYL, ignoring for the time
being, whether or not the appellant had any connection with
IUML or MYL or that the same were published by him or with
his consent by any other person or published by his election
agent or by any other person with the consent of his election
agent. The evidence of the election petitioner himself or of PW 4
and PW 5 to prove the contents of the messages and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
advertisements in the newspaper in our opinion was wrongly
admitted and relied upon as evidence of the contents of the
statement contained therein.”
36.The learned counsel for the plaintiff then placed reliance on the
judgment reported in (1965) 2 QB 86, McCarey V. Associated Newspapers
Ltd.. The relevant portion of the judgment is as follows:
“If I may summarise shortly in my own words what I think
is to be derived from that case, it is this: that from henceforth a
clear distinction should be drawn between compensatory
damages and punitive damages. Compensatory damages, in a
case in which they are at large, may include several different
kinds of compensation to the injured plaintiff. They may include
not only actual pecuniary loss and anticipated pecuniary loss or
any social disadvantages which result, or may be thought likely
to result, from the wrong which has been done. They may also
include the natural injury to his feelings – the natural grief and
distress which he may have felt at having been spoken of in
defamatory terms, and if there has been any kind of high-
handed, oppressive, insulting or contumelious behaviour by the
defendant which increases the mental pain and suffering caused
by the defamation and may constitute injury to the plaintiff's
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
pride and self-confidence, those are proper elements to be taken
into account in a case where the damages are at large.”
37.The learned counsel for the plaintiff further placed reliance on the
judgment reported in (1868) 18 LT 615, Risk Allahbey Vs. Whitehurst. The
relevant portion of the judgment is as follows:
“......... I quite agree that if, by some oversight or want of
firmness on the part of the judge or jury, a great criminal escapes,
and, by a miscarriage of justice, a scandal is brought on its
administration and the criminal is let loose on society,
rehabilitated and let loose when he ought to be suffering
punishment – in such a case a public writer would be doing no
more than his duty in coming forward to remonstrate with the
tribunal through whose want of firmness the man has been
acquitted. If that is done through that fair and reasonable exercise
of judgment which the case demands, no jury ought to visit a
public writer with damages because he has fairly and
conscientiously discharged a public duty. On the other hand, if
you think there has been rashness and recklessness in quarrelling
with the verdict of acquittal which has declared the man to be
innocent, and especially under a criminal prosecution, your
verdict will be based on those considerations. ........”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
38.Pointing out the dictum laid down in the above judgments, the
learned counsel for the plaintiff insisted that the plaintiff had suffered loss of
image and reputation owing to the speech made by the defendant, more
importantly by holding out the picture of the plaintiff and the plaintiff with the
party president. The learned counsel pointed out that this speech was made
even though the FIR had been quashed by an order of this Court. It was stated
that even though the plaintiff had not been named, by holding the picture, the
defendant had made it explicit as to whom he was referring to the speech.
39.The learned counsel stated that the plaintiff enjoyed a good
reputation within his party members and friends and this reputation had been
damaged in the eyes of his party members, his friends and more importantly
also the seniors in his party. The learned counsel therefore stated that the suit
should be decreed and the plaintiff must be granted damages as the Court
deems fit.
40.Mr.S.Duraisamy, the learned counsel for the defendant, however
denied and disputed the contention of the plaintiff. The learned counsel first
pointed out that the cause of action for the suit arose at Pollachi where the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
defendant was said to have spoken the words which are alleged to be
defamatory. The incident which lead to the speech also took place in a train
while travelling from Chennai to Coimbatore in the middle of the night, again
outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. It was therefore contended that
no part of cause of action had ever arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court.
The residence of the defendant at Chennai was only temporary since he was a
Minister at that point of time. But later during the course of trial, he had lost
the elections and was not residing within the jurisdiction of this Court. The
learned counsel stated that the suit is not maintainable within the jurisdiction
of this Court.
41.The learned counsel then pointed out that the speech was made only
about a true incident. He also stated that the incident had been reported in
newspapers, which are reflected in Exs.D2 and D3 and therefore lakhs of
people had read it and came to know about the incident. It was therefore stated
that there be the allegation that the speech was defamatory in nature could not
be maintained. It was a reiteration of a true incident. The plaintiff was
travelling in the train. The plaintiff fell down on the lady passenger in the
lower berth. A First Information Report was registered against the plaintiff.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
The fact that the First Information Report was quashed would be of no
assistance to the plaintiff since it was quashed only because of a compromise
effected between the plaintiff and the defacto complainant. A compromise
could be effected only when there is an incident in the first place and
therefore, the learned counsel stated that the defendant had a right to state the
true facts in public and denied that they were defamatory in nature. The
learned counsel also pointed out the statement of the lady recorded before the
Magistrate which contained true facts.
42.With respect to the actual speech made, the learned counsel pointed
that the name of the plaintiff was not mentioned. He stated that it is not
evident, as to whom it was addressed. He also stated that some witnesses
should have been examined by the plaintiff to state that the speech was
actually defamatory in nature. Witnesses must also speak that it was the
defendant who made the speech and that the words were actually defamatory.
The learned counsel also stated that though the speech was put up in the
Youtube channel, the author of the Youtube channel was not examined.
43.The learned counsel also pointed out that no third party had been
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
examined to speak about the damages to the reputation of the plaintiff. He
stated that the plaintiff should have been examined such a witness. The
plaintiff must have examined a witness to prove that the defendant had made
the speech. He also pointed out that the petition seeking to quash the First
Information Report was not filed by the victim. The victim was not added as a
party to the proceedings but her husband alone was added as a party to the
proceedings. It was therefore insisted that the suit should be dismissed.
44.The learned counsel for the plaintiff in his reply statement pointed
out that the defendant had admitted that he made the speech and therefore, no
witness was required on that aspect. He stated that the speech contained rash
and reckless statements and also an aggravated version of the incident. He
stated that it was an attack on personal basis. There were extrinsic materials
available and the speech was perse defamatory. The learned counsel pointed
out that the photograph Exs.P3 and P4 would show the picture of the plaintiff
was exhibited by the defendant. He was, therefore, reiterated that the relief in
the suit should be granted by this Court.
45.I have carefully considered the arguments advanced and perused the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
materials on record.
Issue Nos.1 and 2:
46.Both these issues surround the relief of damages as sought in the
plaint and more particularly, the quantum of damages as sought namely,
Rs.1,00,01,000/- and whether the plaintiff is entitled for such damages.
47.It is the contention of the plaintiff that on 11.03.2019, he was
travelling from Chennai to Coimbatore by train. It is claimed by the plaintiff
that he was suffering from diabetes mellitus. This statement had been
reiterated by him in his proof affidavit. During the said travel, in the midnight,
when he tried to get down from the upper berth to go over to the refresh room,
he claimed that he slipped and fell on a lady passenger sleeping in the lower
berth.
48.The one crucial aspect of the entire incident is the suffering of the
plaintiff owing to the illness which he claims he was affected with. That was
the first fact which he should prove namely, that he was actually suffering
from diabetes mellitus and therefore, there was a necessity for him in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
middle of the night to climb down from upper berth. If he had not been
suffering, there would be no necessity for him to climb down from the upper
berth. Unfortunately, no document had been produced by the plaintiff to show
that he was actually suffering from such illness.
49.At any rate, while climbing down, he had fallen on the lower berth,
on a lady who was sleeping in the lower berth. This is normally not possible. If
anyone knows the structure of a train compartment when a person climbs
down from the upper berth and if he slips, he would fall to the ground and not
on the inside of the lower berth. When the plaintiff had retired for the night,
he would have known that in that lower berth, a lady was sleeping and
therefore, if he is to uphold his reputation, he would have to take additional
care to ensure that he does not fall on her for any reason whatsoever. The lady
was also pregnant way. He could have caused serious harm to her. It would
not be possible for anyone to fall down diagonally straight into the lower berth
on the top of the lady who is sleeping there.
50.The reason advanced for climbing down in the first place was that he
was suffering from diabetes mellitus and there being no proof for the same,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
not even a mere prescription, the said reason has to be straight away rejected
by this Court.
51.The second fact is that he actually fell down on the lady. That cannot
be denied or disputed by the plaintiff, whatever be the reason or whatever be a
cause for such fall. Thereafter, the lady pushed him down and he fell on the
floor. He was lying there for a full 15 minutes. In the earliest statement of the
victim lady, at a time when she would not known whom he was and what post
he held or any other detail about him or even his name, she had stated that he
smelled mildly of alcohol. When this statement is viewed in its proper
perspective and balanced with the reason given that the plaintiff was suffering
from diabetes mellitus, even if this statement of the lady is not to be believed
by this Court, still the plaintiff had a duty to establish that this statement is
wrong and the earlier statement of his that he was suffering from diabetes
mellitus is actually correct and true. Therefore, it is imperative that proof is
produced for suffering from diabetes mellitus. Even when the plaintiff knew
about this particular statement of the victim, he had still not thought it was
essential that he should produce a document to show that he was suffering
from diabetes mellitus.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
52.During cross-examination, the plaintiff was put the following
questions:
Q38:(Ex.P1 is shown to the witness) Is it correct that in
Ex.P1 it is stated “I could smell little alcohol on him, as soon as he
fell. I just pushed him, he fell down and he was lying on the floor
itself for about 15 minutes”?
A:Yes, but the document should be read fully.
Q39:So I put it to you that you were in a drunken mode
travelled in the train on that day.
A.I deny.”
53.The statement in Ex.P1 that the lady could smell a little alcohol on
the plaintiff was not denied by the plaintiff. But the plaintiff only wanted the
document to be read as a whole. He denied that he was fully drunk. Ex.P1 is
the statement of the victim lady. It was written in what could be presumed to
be her own handwriting. She had stated that she was sleeping in the lower
berth and between 1.30 AM and 2.00 AM in the night, “the man slipped and
fell on me was sleeping in the upper berth” she was very honest in her
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
statement. She stated that she thought he tripped on her. She gave him the
benefit of doubt. But she also stated that she could smell little alcohol on him.
She pushed him. He fell down and was lying on the floor for about 15 minutes.
She further stated and I must appreciate that she actually stated “we decided
that it was not done purposefully, it was just happened”. The statement was
made by a lady after due consideration of the nature of allegations she was
making. She stated the fact, she also gave her impression that it could be
owing to a trip suffered by him and she also stated that he was smelling from
alcohol and she finally stated that, she was of the opinion that it was not done
purposefully.
54.When this document is presented, the only statement which stares
against the plaintiff was the statement that he smelled of alcohol. The
imputation in that statement in Ex.P1 was that he fell down because he was
under the influence of alcohol.
55.It is the contention of the plaintiff that he got down owing to a need
as he was suffering from diabetes milletus. If that be so, the first proof which
he had to discharge was that he was actually suffering from diabetes milletus.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Non-production of any document in that regard would only drag the Court to
hold that he was actually under the influence of alcohol and slipped and fell on
the lady.
56.In his cross-examination further revealing facts came out which were
not stated in the plaint,
“Q40:(Ex.P5 is shown to the witness) In FIR it is stated
that Berth No.17 was occupied by the complainant's wife and
Berth No.18 was occupied by the complainant, is it correct?
A:Yes, it is stated in FIR.
Q41:In which berth the complainant and his wife were
travelling?
A:I do not know.
Q42:I put it to you that the complainant and his wife, were
occupying the side berth whereas you had occupied berth No.14
in the inner berth.
A:Yes.
43:I put it to you that there is no chance that if a person
slipped from berth No.14 in the inner berth to fall on the side
lower berth No.17.
A.I deny, When I got down from the berth I slipped and fell
down and I had become unconscious from sometime.
Q44:It put it to you that you intentionally fell on the woman
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
passenger sleeping in berth No.17 with bad intention.
A:I deny.
Q45:(Plaint is shown to the witness) In para 8a of your
plaint you have stated “he slipped and fell on the lower berth,
wherein a woman passenger was sleeping” What you have stated
in the plaint that the woman was sleeping in the lower berth is
false.
A.I deny.
Q46: I put it to you that the woman passenger was sleeping
on the side lower berth only and not to the lower berth, as stated
by you.
A:Yes.”
57.The plaintiff had agreed that the lady was occupying berth No.17
which was a side berth and the plaintiff was in berth No.14 which was in the
inner berth. Therefore, there was no possibility of him falling down while
climbing down from the upper berth but he could have fallen on her only when
in standing position. This fact had been admitted by him in the cross-
examination as could be seen above. The lady was sleeping on the side lower
berth only and not on the lower berth immediately below the upper berth of
the plaintiff. Once the plaintiff had not disclosed the correct fact, which fact is
essential, then a presumption will have to be drawn that the plaintiff for some
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
conscious reason had taken a decision to withhold the correct facts from on the
purview of this Court.
58.This particular incident had taken place on 11.03.2019. Thereafter,
an FIR in Crime No.62 of 2019 was registered on 26.03.2019. Immediately
thereafter, on 28.03.2019, the incident was reported in the Daily Dhanthi
newspaper dated 28.03.2019. The plaintiff admitted to such publication but
claimed that it was a false news. The news item also appeared in the Malai
Malar newspaper dated 28.03.2019. He again admitted that the publication
was actually made but that the news was a false news. In this regard, the
following two questions were put to the plaintiff during cross-examination:
“Q51:It is correct to state that the news items appeared in
the Dhina Thanthi and Malai Malar dated 28.03.2019 did not
defame you?
A:It is not correct. The said publication of news defamed
me.
Q52:Have you taken any action against the above said two
newspapers' authorities as they have published a false news?
A: No.”
59.He was specifically asked whether those two news items did not
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
defame him and he said that the publication of the news items did actually
defame me. He was then asked whether he had taken any action against those
two newspapers. He admitted that he had not taken any action against those
two newspapers. It is also to be noted that in the news item in Daily Thanthi
newspaper dated 28.03.2019 his name was also given, but still he had not
taken any action against those two newspapers. These were the first
publication to the public about this particular incident. There is no reason
advanced by the plaintiff as to why he had not taken any action against those
two newspapers. He had however, picked the defendant alone and had left out
the two said newspapers which had also published the same incident probably
in their words, but still had disseminated that information to the general public
to the disadvantage of the plaintiff.
60.It is also to be noted that, the plaintiff had stated that in the petition
filed by him in Crl.O.P.No.14433 of 2019, which is Ex.D1, that owing to this
unfortunate sequence of events resulting in the registration of FIR, he lost an
opportunity to contest from the Sulur Parliamentary by-election in the year
2019 and had also been suspended from the primary member of the DMK
party. Even this fact was not stated in the plaint but it was extracted from the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
plaintiff during his cross-examination. The questions and answers in that
regard is as follows:
“Q57:In the petition filed by you in Crl.O.P.No.14433
of 2019 to quash the FIR in Crime No.62 of 2019 you have
stated in para 8 because of the unfortunate sequence of events
resulting in FIR the petitioner lost his candidature to contest
from the Sulur constituency and was also suspended from
primary membership of the DMK party. It is correct?
A.Yes. I have stated.
Q58:Is it the copy of the petition filed by you in
Crl.O.P.No.14433 of 2019?
A: Yes. The copy of the petition filed by you in
Crl.O.P.No.14433 of 2019 is marked as Ex.D1.”
61.The plaintiff had pointed out the specific portion in the speech of the
defendant which according to him had defamed him. This was extracted in the
plaint. He had given both the Tamil and English version. They are extracted
again below:
“me;j khjphp. ,nj khjphp/// jpKfy me;j
,uapypy; te;J ghypay; bjhy;iy gz;Qqd/// ,njh
K/f/!;;lhypd; ,Jjhd;/// vd;ndhl nghl;nlht
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
fdpbkhHp fhkpr;rp';fy/// ,Jf;bfd;d gjpY>
c';fz;zd;. c';fz;ze;jhd; xl;o epf;FwhU/// eP';f
xU bgz;zh ,Ue;J fz;or;rp';fsh `gh;!;L/// mnj
nghy///”””
“Like, Like wise in DMK, while traveling on a train, he
has sexually harassed someone... here, This is M.K.Stalin...
Kanimozhi, you have showed my picture.... What is the answer?
Your brother, your bother is closely standing.... Firstly, as a
woman would you condemn this? .... lik this...”
62.During his cross-examination, the learned counsel for the defendant
put questions relating to each sentence and each word of that extract. The
cross-examination was as follows:
“Q60:Whether the word “me;j khjphp ” “Like wise”
defame your reputation?
A:Yes. Witness adds: The defamatory statement should be
read as a whole.
Q61:What is the meaning you understood of the word
“me;j khjphp ” “Like wise”?
A:It has to be taken the context of the entire speech found
in Ex.P3 CD.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Q62:Have you filed the present case based on the CD or
only the para 5 and 6 of the plaint?
A:On the basis of CD speech I have filed the suit.
Q63:The contents of CD is not stated in the plaint, is it
correct?
A:Yes, not stated in detail in the plaint, but we have filed
Ex.P3 CD.
Q64:In para 5 of your plaint, which portion has defamed
you?
A:Entire contents of para 5 is defamed me.
Q65:Whether the words “,njh K/f/!;lhypd;
,Jjhd;” is defamed you?
A:The total contents of para 5 is defamed me.
Q66:My specific question is that whether the word
“,njh K/f/!;lhypd; ,Jjhd;” is defamed you?
A:Yes.
Q67: So if anybody say this is M.K.Stalin it is the
defamatory statement, is it correct?
A:No.
Q68:So if anybody say this is Kanimozhi it is the
defamatory statement, is it correct?
A:No.
Q69:Then which portion of para 5 of your plaint has
defamed you?
A:Both the act of showing the photo of M.K.Stalin and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
me, along with the defamatory speech has defamed me.
Q70:In para 5 of your plaint, no where your name
Rajendran is found, is it correct?
A:No. But the defamatory speech found in Ex.P3 CD and
the act of showing the photo of M.K.Stalin along with my photo
is defamatory.”
63.The learned counsel for the plaintiff in his arguments stated that the
defendant had not only uttered the words which are sought to be defamatory,
but had also pointed out the photographs in Ex.P4. Ex.P4 shows the defendant
holding out two separate photographs, probably at the time when he addressed
the gathering. The first photograph is stated to contain the picture of the
plaintiff. The second photograph is stated to contain the picture of the plaintiff
and also the president of DMK party. Pointing this exhibit, the learned counsel
for the plaintiff stated that it is therefore obvious that the words uttered by the
defendant meant only the plaintiff and the plaintiff alone. Moreover, there was
aggravated defamation since the second photograph not only contained the
photograph of the plaintiff but also the photograph of the president of DMK
party. It is therefore contended by the learned counsel for the plaintiff that the
words spoken and the picture exhibited should be examined side by side and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
cannot be separated from the other and if the speech is then so read, the words
uttered by the defendant have to be categorised as being not only reckless and
defamatory but also as an aggravated form of defamation as unnecessarily the
photograph of the plaintiff with the president of DMK was also exhibited. But
the plaintiff himself in the cross-examination extracted above had give two
contradictory answers. Question Nos.66 and 67 are extracted again below:
Q66:My specific question is that whether the word
“,njh K/f/!;lhypd; ,Jjhd;” is defamed you?
A:Yes.
Q67: So if anybody say this is M.K.Stalin it is the
defamatory statement, is it correct?
A:No.
64.The reading of the two answers would reveal that the plaintiff in the
answer to the first question extracted above had stated that the words actually
defamed him, but admitted that if anybody stated the same statement it was
not defamatory. The plaintiff seems to oscillate in his stand.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
65.Placing reliance on the judgement reported in (1990) 3 SCC 396,
M.J.Zakharia Sait Vs. T.M.Mohammed, the learned counsel for the plaintiff
stated that it is not required that the individual should be named in a speech
which is alleged to be defamatory nature. In that particular case, a wall poster
was affixed directly alleging that a candidate was the murderer. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court held that it must be proved that such wall poster was posted
prior to the election by the workers of the returned candidate with his
knowledge and consent.
66.The learned counsel for the plaintiff had placed specific reference to
paragraph No.37. The learned counsel placed reliance on the observation that
the words may not be defamatory in their normal sense, but becomes
defamatory owing to extrinsic facts and in this connection, pointed out that
Ex.P4 photograph is an extrinsic facts and when viewed in conjunction with
the word uttered they would make the words defamatory in nature.
67.In the instant case, if that be the stand of the plaintiff, then he should
have also examined further witnesses to hold that they heard the speech and
viewed the photograph shown at the same time by the defendant and they
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
formed an opinion by linking the words and the photograph and in their
opinion the image and reputation of the plaintiff suffered. No such evidence
has been produced by the plaintiff except his own self serving statement. Even
if a concession is to be given that no witness need be examined to hold that the
defendant actually spoke the words since the defendant had not denied the
same, it still an independent witness should have been examined to express
opinion that the said words along with the photograph had actually lowered
the image of the plaintiff in the view of that witness atleast.
68.It is not known why the plaintiff had thought it was not requisite to
examine such witness. This non-examination of witness must be read in
conjunction with the plaintiff not taking any action against the two newspapers
which had published the new items and in one of them his name was also
mentioned. Once the news item had been published, the incident becomes a
fact and when only a fact is spoken about, that could be a reasonable defence
for an action alleging defamation. Therefore, there should be a witness to state
that the words spoken by the defendant were defamatory in nature and that the
words spoken in conjunction with the photographs made it obvious that the
defamation was aimed only at the plaintiff and that the words were actually
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
defamatory in nature and they were actually spoken by the defendant.
69.On the side of the defendant, an argument was put forth that the
defendant was only commenting on a newspaper item already published and
the news was already available to the general public much prior to the speech
of the defendant. The incident had already been widely exposed and published
as a news item atleast two separate newspapers which have reasonably good
circulation. When the plaintiff had not taken any action against those
newspapers, it defies logic to hold that he could maintain an action only
against the person who comments what had already been published by the
newspapers.
70.Moreover, the plaintiff did not hear the speech directly. It was only
informed to him that the defendant had made such speech. He had not
examined the person who informed him about that speech. The questions and
answers in that regard is as follows:
“Q19:When did you go to attend the Pollachi meeting?
A:I did not go to Pollachi to attend the meeting.
Q20:I put it to you that you did not hear the speech of
S.P.Velumani.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A:Yes, I did not hear his speech.
Q21:So, I put it to you that you do not have direct
knowledge about the speech of S.P.Velumani.
A:Yes. I do not have direct knowledge about the speech of
S.P.Velumani.
Q22:I put it to you that without knowing anything about
the speech of S.P.Velumani in the public meeting you have filed
the present suit.
A:I deny.
Q23:Is it correct to state that after seeing the Ex.P4
screen shot you came to know that S.P.Velumani spoke at
Pollachi in a public meeting?
A:My relative and friends and District Secretary of our
DMK party contacted me through phone at the time of meeting
itself and told about the same.
Q24:You have not stated the above facts and the persons
name who told to you either in your plaint or in your proof
affidavit, is it correct?
A:Yes, correct.”
71.It is thus seen that the plaintiff did not go to Pollachi to attend the
meeting where the defendant had addressed the gathering, that he did not hear
the speech and he admitted that he had no direct knowledge about the speech
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
of the defendant. He further stated that his relative and friends and District
Secretary of the DMK party contacted him through phone at the time of the
meeting and told him about the same.
72.These admissions point out that the plaintiff had no direct knowledge
and was not present when the speech was made. He was only informed about
the speech by his relative, friends and the District Secretary of the DMK party.
Their names have not been disclosed in the plaint. Their names have not been
disclosed in the proof affidavit. He had also not thought it requisite that he
should examine anyone of them as a witness. It is they who were of the
opinion that the speech defamed the plaintiff. They are significant witnesses.
They should have been named by the plaintiff. They should have been
examined by the plaintiff. Having failed to do so, the plaintiff cannot seek any
relief against the defendant.
73.The learned counsel for the plaintiff had placed reliance on the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 1994 (3) SCC SUPP 5,
Qumaraul Islam Vs. S.K.Kanta and Ors, on the ground that the newspaper
reports are not evidence and are only hearsay evidence. When the plaintiff
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
questioned the veracity of the newspaper reports as being only hearsay
evidence, his own statement about the defendant is also hearsay evidence and
there cannot be creditability attached to his statement and not to the report of
the newspapers. If one is to fall, both have to fall.
74.The learned counsel for the plaintiff placed reliance on the judgment
reported in (1965) 2 QB 86, McCarey Vs. Associated Newspapers Ltd. This
was about the compensatory and punitive damages and stepped into the realm
of grant or otherwise of the damages.
75.It will have to be first examined whether the plaintiff is entitled for
any damages. A summary of the reasons stated above shows that the plaintiff
had not disclosed that the lady was sleeping in the side berth and that he was
actually in the inner berth and therefore, could not have fallen on her when
climbing down from the upper berth. The plaintiff had not taken any action
against newspapers which had published about the registration of the First
Information Report against him. The plaintiff had not attended the meeting
and had no direct knowledge of either the speech made or the photographs
exhibited. All are hearsay evidence.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
76.The plaintiff had not examined any individual to speak about the fact
that the defendant spoke disparagingly about the plaintiff. The plaintiff did not
examine any witness to show that his reputation was lowered and therefore, he
had a cause to seek damages against the defendant.
77.In the extract in the plaint, the name of the plaintiff is not mentioned
by the defendant and even though the plaintiff stated that the entire speech
should be heard as a whole, the fact is that he had also not heard them directly.
78.The suit was instituted within the jurisdiction of this Court only
taking advantage of a temporary address of the defendant at the time of
institution of the suit. Even pending the suit, the defendant had lost the
elections, lost his post, lost his position as Member of the Legislative
Assembly and commenced to permanently reside in his native place. The
speech was made at Pollachi. It was about an incident which happened in the
middle of the night in a train travelling from Chennai to Coimbatore, outside
the jurisdiction of this Court. This Court has no jurisdiction at all to entertain
the plaint. Even if this might be only an ancillary reason, still, the plaintiff had
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
not established either loss to reputation by examining any third party. He had
not established direct knowledge about the speech by examining his relative,
friends or the District Secretary of the DMK party. He had not disclosed the
correctness about the nature of the seating positioning in the compartment in
the train. I hold that the plaintiff is not entitled for any damages, much less
damage of Rs.1,00,01,000/-. The issue Nos.1 and 2 are answered against the
plaintiff.
Issue No.3:
79.The issue relate to whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent
injunction as sought in the plaint. Issue Nos.1 and 2 had been answered against
the plaintiff. But, however, it has to be held that the defendant has to be
restrained from raising the unfortunate issue again in public. The plaintiff's
privacy is paramount and therefore, though it had been held that the plaintiff is
not entitled for damages, his privacy should be protected and therefore, in
order to douse the flame, I would grant an order of permanent injunction
against the defendant from restraining him from referring to the issue in public
again. This does not mean that the defendant can never question any of the
plaintiff's acts. As a person leading public life, he has a right to speak out on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
every other issue, but not on the issue which is the subject matter of this suit.
To that extent alone, permanent injunction is granted.
Issue No.4:
80.This issue is whether the plaintiff is entitled for costs of the suit.
Since issue Nos.1, 2 and 3 had been answered against the plaintiff, this issue is
also answered against the plaintiff. It is held that the plaintiff is not entitled for
costs of the suit.
Issue No.5:
81.The plaintiff is not entitled for any relief as sought by him. As a
matter of fact, the Court has no jurisdiction to examine the issues raised in the
plaint. The plaintiff had taken advantage of a temporary address of the
defendant. It could be equally stated that the plaintiff had filed the suit seeking
a convenient jurisdiction, when the Court at Pollachi or Coimbatore depending
on pecuniary claims would be the competent Courts having jurisdiction.
82.In the result, the suit is partly allowed only with respect to grant of
permanent injunction as qualified in paragraph No.79 of this judgment and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
dismissed with costs with respect to all other reliefs. Consequently, connected
Original Application stands closed.
smv 09.08.2024
Internet:Yes/No
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
Speaking Order : Yes/No
Plaintiff's side Witnesses:
P.W.1 – Mr.A.Rajendran
Defendant's side Witnesses:
D.W.1 – Mr.S.P.Velumani
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Documents:
Ex.P.1 05.04.2019 Certified copy of the deposition of the complainant's
wife before the Judicial Magistrate, Additional Mahila
Court Salem.
Ex.P.2 14.06.2019 Certified copy of the order of this Court in
Crl.O.P.No.14433 of 2019 and Crl.M.P.No.7023 of
Ex.P.3 Compact disc with true copy of transcripts CD
containing speech of the defendant dated 11.01.2021
at Pollachi along with certificate under Section 65B of
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (marked with subject to
objection)
Ex.P.4 Printout of the screen shot of the defendant while
making the defamatory speech with certificate under
Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (marked
with subject to objection)
Ex.P.5 26.03.2019 Certified copy of the FIR in Crime No.62 of 2019
Ex.D.1 The copy of the petition filed in Crl.O.P.No.14433 of
2019 (through PW-1 cross)
Ex.D.2 28.03.2019 Copy of the Malaimalar newspaper
Ex.D.3 28.03.2019 Copy of the Daily Thanthi newspaper
09.08.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.
smv
Pre-Delivery Judgment made
in
09.08.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
